AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·01 March 2019

First-tier Tribunal Orders Rent Repayment for Non-Compliance with Improvement Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a local housing authority successfully obtained Rent Repayment Orders from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to recover the amount of housing benefit paid to tenants because the landlord failed to comply with an Improvement Notice. This decision highlights the importance of landlords adhering to Improvement Notices to avoid financial penalties.

⚖️ Legal holding

A local housing authority is entitled to recover the amount of housing benefit paid when a landlord fails to comply with an Improvement Notice.

Topics

housing benefit recoveryImprovement Notice compliance

Provisions

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.41 Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.43

📖 What the law says

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.41

A tenant or a local housing authority can ask the First-tier Tribunal for an order to repay rent if the landlord has broken a law covered by this chapter. A tenant can only apply if the offense happened within two years and affected their rented home. A local housing authority can apply if the offense happened in their area and they followed the requirements in section 42.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.43

The First-tier Tribunal can make a rent repayment order if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a landlord broke a law covered by this chapter. Such an order can only be made based on an application under section 41.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered a repayment of housing benefit to the Local Housing Authority due to the Respondent's failure to comply with an Improvement Notice.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) issued Rent Repayment Orders requiring the Respondent to repay the amount of housing benefit paid to the Applicant due to the Respondent's failure to comply with an Improvement Notice. The orders were made under sections 41 and 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/00GF/HSH/2018/0001 BIR/00GF/HSH/2018/0002 Properties : 169 & 170 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] of applications : Applications for rent repayment orders by a Local Housing Authority. Sections, 41 & 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016

Tribunal Member : V Ward BSc (Hons) FRICS

Date of Decision : 31 January 2019

DECISION

2 BACKGROUND

1. The Tribunal received applications dated 4 December 2018, under section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 from Telford & Wrekin Council (the Local Housing Authority) for rent repayment orders in respect of 169 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] BIR/00GF/HSH/2018/0001) and 170 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (BIR/00GF/HSH/2018/0002).

2. The Respondent in each case is [RESPONDENT].

3. The applications followed the Respondent pleading guilty on 1 October 2018 in Shropshire Magistrates Court for failing to comply with an Improvement Notice.

4. The amount of the Order sought is the amount of housing benefit paid and is as follows with the period of the offence indicated for each property:

[ADDRESS]

£1891.99

13 May 2018 to 19 June 2018

[ADDRESS]

£983.13

12 May 2018 to 19 June 2018

5. Under the Tribunal’s case management powers derived from Rule 6 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal hereby consolidated the applications as the parties and issues are the same in respect of both matters.

6. The Tribunal sent the Respondent copies of the application with supporting documents and also invited the Respondent to confirm if they wished to oppose the applications.

7. By way of a letter dated 21 December 2018, the Respondent’s representative, [NAME], advised the Tribunal that their client did not intend to oppose the applications.

8. By way of Directions issued on 3 January 2019, the Tribunal advised the parties that it intended to issue Rent Repayment Orders in the amounts given in 4. above, summarily and without reasons, unless the Respondent contacted the Tribunal to the contrary by 25 January 2019.

3 9. The Respondent has not contacted the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal now makes the following Order:

DETERMINATION

10. The Tribunal determines that the Respondent should repay the following amounts to the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this Order:

£1891.99 (One thousand eight hundred and ninety one pounds, ninety nine pence) in respect of [ADDRESS].

£983.13 (Nine hundred and eighty three pounds, thirteen pence) in respect [ADDRESS].

APPEAL

11. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision they may apply to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be received within 28 days after these written reasons have been sent to the parties (Rule 52 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

V [NAME]

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

The tenant is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord fails to comply with licensing requirements.
The landlord must repay the amount of housing benefit paid if they do not follow an Improvement Notice.
The tenant can receive a fair market rent as determined by the tribunal.
The landlord must obtain a license for an HMO and repay rent if the premises were unlicensed.
The tenant is entitled to a rent repayment order if the landlord commits an offense under housing legislation.

❌ Tends to be rejected

(No factors listed against the claimant in the provided cases)

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ordered the tenant to repay £2875 in housing benefit to the council.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the tenant's failure to comply with an Improvement Notice, leading to the requirement to repay housing benefit.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant must repay the housing benefit because they failed to comply with the Improvement Notice, as required by the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 sections 41 and 43 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the tenant's failure to comply with the Improvement Notice, which led to the requirement to repay the housing benefit.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the local housing authority.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure compliance with Improvement Notices to avoid having to repay housing benefit.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the Improvement Notice and the period of non-compliance.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.